I drove the 1.5 sport with the CVT and the 6 speed stick back to back, I was not impressed with either, In my humble opinion the Accords are way over rated, I guess I won't be hire by car and Driver to test drive future Hondas.

Accords are good cars, some generations dreadfully styled including this one, but most are well-built, nicely packaged and with nice powertrains. However, they’re not automotive marvels unlike what this publishing is wanting you to believe.

jon, I'm glad I'm not the only one. I considered a prior gen Accord and found it pretty dull to drive, and the interior midpack at best. Equivalent-trim Mazda6s, Fusions, and Camrys were better on various fundamentals like seat comfort, noise control, and interior quality. The primary distinction of the Accord is the availability of a manual--otherwise, i'm not getting the effusive praise. But maybe this one is finally worthy of all the fuss.

30710 for cheapest manual accord 2019 w/o destination (which does not matter because civic has too), Also a civic sport is 21150. I bet they could put in this powertrain for 6K.

Now that both cars share platforms it's not like your stuffing a big engine in a little car. The Accord Sport 2.0 is a Civic type R without limited slip, big brakes, fancy differential and wing. Is all that worth the $6k difference?

Now that both cars share platforms it's not like your stuffing a big engine in a little car. The Accord Sport 2.0 is a Civic type R without limited slip, big brakes, fancy differential and wing. Is all that worth the $6k difference?

I like the brakes and the differential but not for 6K. also would pay more for no wing lol. I think with volume they could be had for cheaper on sale too, something the type R wont ever do (go on sale). I wouldn't be a target buyer but either way I do my own brake upgrades anyway. I probably would be more interested in the civic R if it had acura service and less over the top appearance. Add AWD and I would pay a good deal more.

Why no mention of the poor braking performance? A recent comparo with CX 9 and Chevy Traverse shows superior braking from 70 MPH despite being much heavier with no real sporting intentions. Why does this get conveniently overlooked?

welp love my 2018 sport 1.5T minus the front strut that needs warranty replacement, the weatherstrip coming loose from the drivers door, the recall for the back up camera and the dipstick that smells like fuel dilution from growing concerns over Hondas new turbos OTHER THAN THAT it's been a lovely one year at 1800 miles, two oil changes no other complaints

The 2.0T Accord is fantastic drive! The looks is not that appealing however. The rear quarter does look out of place and no lift back trunk either. Overall, disappointing on Hond’s California design Team!

This generation Accord took a big step backward for me with that odd styling. I’d gladly take a previous-gen or a current Camry over this. Happy that C/D likes it and is having a good time with it. Looking forward to the redesign.

the hyperactive warning and safety systems was actually something I noticed when I was shopping Camry vs Accord, too. if you're alright with intrusive safety features or drive around with them off most of the time, you'll be fine with either. if you prefer to have them on in the background with much less interference, the Camry is the better choice.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15101487/2016-honda-accord-coupe-v-6-automatic-test-review/Here it is....the infamous 2 door Accord Coupe V6, this one in automatic.....Notice how similar the performance....However:
1) The New Accord Sedan 2.0 Turbo is over 200 lbs lighter than the old V6 coupe.
2) The Old V6 and the new 2.0 Turbo trade places in the HP and torque....That is, the new 2.0T has, in HP what the old V6 had in torque.....and vice versa.
3) Torque, Torque, Torque, Down low....That's what turbos are for! (4900 rpm for the V6 while 1500 for the 2.0T)
4) Not to mention a faster shifting, power-extracting tuned (like the new Mustang GT 10-auto), 10-speed tranny which probably keeps the juice maximized when you step on it but chills, with the 'down-low' torque, when cruising, extracting max MPG. I mean, going from 22 to 28 MPG combined is no chump-change.

5) However I am still glad, in a way, that the Camry V6 still exists.....

Those were German-made ZF transmissions. Now Honda makes their own for their upper level models.

You're kidding me right!? This article even specifically says this transmission for this exact model is a zf sourced unit. The current TLX with the 2.4 liter is a ZF and has no issues, but the V6 model with Honda's in house 9 spd had problems. The 2012 through 2016 V6 models specifically had high failure rates. My father's 2000 TL with Honda's own 5 spd unit was replaced 4 times. Long story short, you absolutely have no idea what you're talking about.

You're kidding me right!? This article even specifically says this transmission for this exact model is a zf sourced unit. The current TLX with the 2.4 liter is a ZF and has no issues, but the V6 model with Honda's in house 9 spd had problems. The 2012 through 2016 V6 models specifically had high failure rates. My father's 2000 TL with Honda's own 5 spd unit was replaced 4 times. Long story short, you absolutely have no idea what you're talking about.

You are very confused. This Accord has a Honda-built 10-speed. ZF supplies a 9-speed that is used in none of the current Accord models. The box in your 2.4L TLX is a Honda 8-speed DCT.

It would be difficult to find a better overall vehicle for most people than the new Accord, though a manual transmission would have made it even better for those of us who are enthusiasts. It carries five comfortably, and has a decent-sized trunk, and plenty of style and performance. Who needs an SUV anyway?

“Although the 2.0T always pulled half a car or so at the beginning of every 40mph roll, the V6 crushed it in short order, usually well before the speedometers hit 60. In a traditional 40-120 roll, the new car wouldn’t be within shouting distance of the old one’s taillights.”

Interesting article, but I'm not sure how to square it against C/D test results of an automatic V6 Accord, which was dead even or slightly slower than this 2.0T in every acceleration metric except rolling start, even up to 120mph. I wonder if the manual transmission rather than the V6 engine was the primary advantage. That said, the J35 is a slick and wonderful engine that is more appealing than a turbo 4 regardless of meaningless acceleration metrics.

Nope. I have owned a 2018 Accord Touring 1.5T since the day they went on sale back in Oct 2017 and have 24K miles on mine. It is an outstanding vehicle. Reliable, gets great mileage, it is very quiet and refined, and everyone that has been in it is blown away by how luxurious the interior is. It's also incredibly well designed ergonomically, which is something that can't be said for its main competitor, the Camry.

Nope. I have owned a 2018 Accord Touring 1.5T since the day they went on sale back in Oct 2017 and have 24K miles on mine. It is an outstanding vehicle. Reliable, gets great mileage, it is very quiet and refined, and everyone that has been in it is blown away by how luxurious the interior is. It's also incredibly well designed ergonomically, which is something that can't be said for its main competitor, the Camry.

Reliability at 24K is truly an amazing accomplishment. Does yours supplement its own oil supply with gasoline or is that only a CR-V feature?

Look, the Accord is a good car. Arguably best in class. But Honda has been in C/D's wheelhouse for 30 years and the Accord has a reserved 10 Best podium finish even when they award comparison wins to a competitor. After cross-shopping the 9th gen Accord, I've decided to take C/D's love letters about the Accord with a grain of salt the size of a bowling ball.

Reliability at 24K is truly an amazing accomplishment. Does yours supplement its own oil supply with gasoline or is that only a CR-V feature?

Look, the Accord is a good car. Arguably best in class. But Honda has been in C/D's wheelhouse for 30 years and the Accord has a reserved 10 Best podium finish even when they award comparison wins to a competitor. After cross-shopping the 9th gen Accord, I've decided to take C/D's love letters about the Accord with a grain of salt the size of a bowling ball.

Its only the CR-V with the 1.5T that has the oil/gas mixing issue, and it wasn't every single one built. CR-V's with the carryover 2.4L weren't affected. Civic's (incl the Si) and Accord's with the 1.5T weren't affected either. Honda is working on a fix for it. Also, all automakers make a mistake on occasion. Unfortunately, it does happen.

Its only the CR-V with the 1.5T that has the oil/gas mixing issue, and it wasn't every single one built. CR-V's with the carryover 2.4L weren't affected. Civic's (incl the Si) and Accord's with the 1.5T weren't affected either. Honda is working on a fix for it. Also, all automakers make a mistake on occasion. Unfortunately, it does happen.

I understand, it was a cranky little jab at some overly enthusiastic rhetoric.

In seriousness, though, I wouldn't be touching a 1.5T Accord, non-Si Civic, or CR-V. Those cars aren't special or interesting enough to risk an engine issue when there are several other very good competitors. Outliers happen, but issues of that severity so soon out of the gate don't inspire much confidence in the longer term durability of the 1.5T. It'll take a lot of miles and time on these engines before it really does become clear if this was a short-lived flaw in only the CR-V. Honda's notorious early-aughts automatic V6 transmissions and Toyota's oil-burning 1.8 and 2.4 engines show that sometimes even the stalwart manufacturers make big mistakes that don't get fixed.

I understand, it was a cranky little jab at some overly enthusiastic rhetoric.

In seriousness, though, I wouldn't be touching a 1.5T Accord, non-Si Civic, or CR-V. Those cars aren't special or interesting enough to risk an engine issue when there are several other very good competitors. Outliers happen, but issues of that severity so soon out of the gate don't inspire much confidence in the longer term durability of the 1.5T. It'll take a lot of miles and time on these engines before it really does become clear if this was a short-lived flaw in only the CR-V. Honda's notorious early-aughts automatic V6 transmissions and Toyota's oil-burning 1.8 and 2.4 engines show that sometimes even the stalwart manufacturers make big mistakes that don't get fixed.

If you Google "oil dilution" and "Mazda" or Audi" or many other car companies, the issue will come up. It is a problem with several DI turbo engines.

I love the Camry vs Accord circle jerk that always happens on these reviews. It’s like a couple of old people arguing about oatmeal vs cream of wheat. Look I get it they are both fine automobiles but lets not act like either are that much differentiated or high performing where there is a reasonable difference.

It’s like polenta vs grits they are the exact some things with just a different name to try to differentiate themselves.

NA V6s have their devotees too, and the Camry's is a sweet one. So that's two very real points of difference.

I think there's something to be said for Toyota's approach of dual port/direct injection, natural aspiration, and a geared transmission in their volume 4-popper trims as well. I can't say a small-displacement DI-only turbo paired to a CVT sounds exciting or comforting in the long haul.

That’s just downright laughable. OOOH, I want a manual transmission, let’s look at the CAMRY! NOT!!!!!!!!! I get the enjoyment of a manual transmission, but a Camry? That’s not the car you want it in.

Dunno about that. I had a Mark V Jetta with a stick shift. That car wasn't a sharp corner carver, but the handling fundamentals were solid and honest for a FWD car. The manual added to the enjoyment. The current Camry SE I had as a rental reminded me of my VW. I think a good stick shift in the Camry is every bit as fitting (or laughable) as a stick shift in the Accord.

The 03-04 Accord was the Accord that has the most blemished record. These had the failure prone 5 speed automatics. It was a good generation, once the transmission issue was corrected. 06-07 was one of my favorite years of the Accord (7th gen)

The 03-04 Accord was the Accord that has the most blemished record. These had the failure prone 5 speed automatics. It was a good generation, once the transmission issue was corrected. 06-07 was one of my favorite years of the Accord (7th gen)

The 03-04 Accord was the Accord that has the most blemished record. These had the failure prone 5 speed automatics. It was a good generation, once the transmission issue was corrected. 06-07 was one of my favorite years of the Accord (7th gen)

My winter car is an 06 accord coupe v6 6MT. its so fast and efficient, i love it.

Accord has for a long time been--and remains--an outstanding vehicle. It's a shame that its so oft overlooked for SUVs.

Honda's active safety suite is the only mar on Accord, as it is on most of Honda's other vehicles. The particular offender is adaptive cruise, which will whiz up behind a slower vehicle. Rather than gently cutting power as you approach, it gets to a point, then completely cuts power, suddenly. When the slower vehicle moves, it takes a long while before the vehicle decides it is safe to accelerate, then does so at a quite leisurely pace. This all results in too much jerkiness, not enough confidence the system is working, and large holes in traffic caused by delays in system activation, often allowing other vehicles to jump in front of you, again triggering the system. It needs a bit of tweaking.

To think that only moms buy this shows how out of touch you are. Not calling you "stupid," because that's not how I engage in civil debate; you're just ignorant and see things lopsidedly. I live in S California, and I see a wide array of people who drive Accords and Hondas in general. Accords sell the highest number in CA mind you.

Any of those mods would only serve to improve acceleration at speed (30-50, 50-70, etc.). The Accord is already up against the typical capability of a FWD platform, cars like the Civic Type R are anomalies because of specific changes made to that car that improve acceleration and handling.

Not a car I would ever buy (not into sedans) but got to give Honda credit for this car. The performance, the fuel economy, the reliability, the cost of maintenance, the comfort and roominess are indeed A+. What more can one ask for?

I wish I could buy a real premium version of the Accord. Another 5-10k in it, AWD, more premium interior, this is a car I would want to own as a daily driver and more. I love this version Accord. I have owned accords since the early 90's. I think I have bought over 10 of them across the generations. My favorite was my 95 2 door EX. I think this is the best 4 door sedan on the road today.

I think Honda loses big money by limiting the Sport model's buildout. The Sport model should be available with all features !! Some reason Honda AND Acura have trouble understanding this. For example - the A Spec packages do not have or allow for adaptive dampers. Get rid of the god-awful and taking up way too much space button-shifter.

The Touring 2.0L trim is loaded, and it has adaptive dampers and the same 19 in wheels as both Sport 1.5T and 2.0T, not to mention navi and leather. Besides, a Sport 2.0T is still just fine, and can always use your phone for navi with apple car play and android auto. However, I do agree with you on the Acura and A spec and the Sport 1.5T as well (as it should at least have a sunroof on the 1.5T, as the 2.0T does)

If it had AWD and a more premium interior it would make Acura totally redundant. The problem Honda has, IMO, is that the Accord is in many ways better than the TLX due to the TLX's age. Until the new TLX comes out, you have two cars that are very good but you would need to combine features of both to have a real luxury car.

If it had AWD and a more premium interior it would make Acura totally redundant. The problem Honda has, IMO, is that the Accord is in many ways better than the TLX due to the TLX's age. Until the new TLX comes out, you have two cars that are very good but you would need to combine features of both to have a real luxury car.

I bought the Premium version, but in a slightly different manner - CPO 2016 MB E Class 4Matic with 28K on the clock. Stickered for $75K, CPO for $31K. Insurance is actually less than the 2018 Touring I was looking at.

Acura is not a real premium anything. I would argue the Accord, right now, is a better car (in and out) than the TLX. I cannot stand the current Acuras - the infotainment could honestly date back to the mid-2000's, the exterior design is boring, uninspired, and rental-carish, and the TLX does not go far enough on the power and performance scale at all.

Acura is not a real premium anything. I would argue the Accord, right now, is a better car (in and out) than the TLX. I cannot stand the current Acuras - the infotainment could honestly date back to the mid-2000's, the exterior design is boring, uninspired, and rental-carish, and the TLX does not go far enough on the power and performance scale at all.

Agree about the TLX. But that should change dramatically....new platform and a twin turbo V6 is on the way.